How Rumors Spread

Easily, it seems. It really is remarkable to note how many of these stories were loudly trumpeted by prominent liberal blogs and magazines, as well as the MSM, in the days after Palin’s nomination, and it should be emphasized that corrections or retractions – when they are published at all – are usually not sufficient to patch things up: even leaving aside the number of people still getting to my own blog by searching for “palin pregnancy rumors” and other such things, it’s incredible to see the number of apparently sane and well-read discussants in comment threads continuing to complain about Palin’s history of book-banning and the like. There is a lot of damage that needs to be undone here, and it seems to me that a reasonable rule of thumb would be that every word spent propagating (or “raising questions about”) a rumor should be met by at least one working to correct it. That the McCain campaign has managed to persist in spreading its own brand of falsehoods about Governor Palin and her executive record is also outrageous, of course, though it would be interesting to see polling data that compared the number of people who think Palin opposed the “Bridge to Nowhere” with the number who think she’s a pregnancy-faking Buchananite secessionist (not that there’s anything wrong with those latter two!). It’s the craziest rumors that die the hardest deaths …

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 9 comments

9 Responses to How Rumors Spread

This is why I am skeptical of the argument put forth by you and Rod, among others. You seem to be arguing that all these smears will back fire on the “Angry Left” (Rod’s words, not mine. Apparently, he’s ready to lock and load a figurative gun to shoot me and my liberal brethren) by angering the people who share Palin’s values.

But here’s the problem with that thinking: smears work. That’s people use them. That’s why the Obama is a Muslim was and still is damaging. Or go ask Al Gore, who in part lost an election because the media manufactured a narrative that he was fundamentally dishonest when the narrative about his lying was a lie. For goodness sake, some people still believe that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster.

In other words, generally speaking when a public figure needs to address a smear he or she’s doing damage control because damage has been done to him or her. I don’t think that’s right or fair, whether its happening to a Democrat or Republican. But it doesn’t change the fact that that is the way things are. More depressing is that I don’t see how you change that fact.

I agree with you, Joseph, and I didn’t mean to suggest that this was something that only the Left has engaged in – though I don’t seem to recall mainstream conservative blogs (by which I mean Douthat or NRO, not Ace of Spades) trafficking in Obama rumors in the same way that the pro-Obama crowd has gone after the Palin stuff. (Then again I tend not to read a ton of conservative blogs, so I could be wrong here.)

As to that McCain ad about Obama: yeah, it’s a case in point. I do actually think that even teaching kids the difference between “good” and “bad” touching is not the sort of thing that should fall to public schools, but then again I’m extreme. There’s no doubt that that ad is dishonest, and it’s good that McCain is being called out on it – unfortunately, as you say, it likely won’t be enough to reverse the damage.

(Exercise for readers: Find out whether the Obama “sex ed” stuff is being talked about at the Corner, the Weekly Standard blog, etc.)

BTW – and this is what I was trying to get at in the post – I think at least one part of the answer to the question of what can be done is that bloggers and folks in the media should be really careful before repeating (or “raising questions about”) stories on potentially sensitive issues, and then extremely diligent about showing those rumors to be false. If liberal bloggers had reacted half as strongly to the demonstrated falsity of the Palin pregnancy rumors as to that McCain ad – and yes, I know that the fact that it is an actual ad makes it much worse – then we’d be much better off.

1) It’s unreasonable to expect bloggers to behave well. But the mainstream media featured many of these stories.

2) The day Palin was picked I was at home watching my son. During his nap I read what I could find on Palin online and knew the real story on almost all of those claims. It’s hard to believe that real journalists didn’t also know that there wasn’t anything behind them.

3) Is `Palin opposed the bridge to nowhere’ false? (A lie the Obama campaign says.) Given what I know, I would say it’s true but somewhat misleading. She did significantly reduce government spending and earmarks during her tenure as governor. And she did do something that was viewed by people who supported the bridge as “opposing the bridge”. If I’m missing something let me know. (I’ve read the WSJ piece and others like it.)

The problem that the Obama camp is going to have is the same problem the right had with Clinton during the 1990’s: The sheer volume of smears and lies is simply going to numb the audience, who will then be much less receptive to any legitimate criticism (even if that criticism has substantial basis in fact) of the candidate. Allies of the Obama campaign have done their candidate a profound diservice by peddling this nonsense with such gusto. Also, when the over-arching narrative of the smears touches on such a live wire of American politics (the cultural & social concerns of working-class whites), already the group (at least in the Midwest) that Obama is having the most trouble connecting to, it simply compounds the problem. Add to that the jaw-droppingly stupid decision of the Obama campaign to go after Palin, rather than McCain, and you end up with results like large numbers of white women shifting to McCain-Palin.

” the condescending dismissal of her backwardness thinly veils the Progressive assumptions about what constitutes a properly enlightened person. While seeking to woo the “middle class” voters of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and other blue-collar states, leading voices of the Party attack Palin for holding values identical with many of those very voters they seek to attract. In dismissing the provincialism of Palin, they reveal their true views about the ordinary people for whom they claim to speak on behalf of.”

On the same note, the first reaction of Obama’s campaign was to run ads here in Ohio (and elsewhere) highlighing abortion, and calling Palin’s position “extreme” Quick question to anyone who knows: Has David Axelrod ever run a campaign outside of a “blue state”? Does he have the slightest idea how badly highlighting social issues hurts him with the voters he will need in Nov.?

… she did do something that was viewed by people who supported the bridge as “opposing the bridge”.

Ahh, come on. She supported the bridge project and defended it against its critics, and then when she decided that there wasn’t enough money for it she kept the funds that had been given, reallocated them to other projects, and continued to complain about the public’s attitude toward the bridge. However it was “viewed by people who supported the bridge”, that’s pretty clearly nothing that SHOULD count as opposing it.